Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:40:34
Message-Id: 20080825194019.2b593fbf@googlemail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) by Zac Medico
1 On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700
2 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
3 > Since there were some questions about ambiguity in the meaning of
4 > the proposed PROPERTIES=virtual [1] value, we need to clarify it.
5 > Just as the "live" property [2] is intended to have a pure and
6 > simple meaning, so is the "virtual" property. The "virtual" property
7 > will serve only as a hint, to indicate that dependency calculations
8 > should consider the package to have zero installation cost (see bug
9 > 141118 [3] for an example of why this knowledge is useful). The
10 > "virtual" property should not imply anything more than this, and
11 > therefore the package manager should assume that the package is to
12 > be treated exactly the same as other ebuilds in every other way. The
13 > package should be installed and uninstalled just like any other
14 > ebuild, including execution of all of the normal ebuild phase
15 > functions that would be executed for any other ebuild that does not
16 > exhibit the "virtual" property.
17
18 So are all zero-install-cost metapackages virtuals now? What about, for
19 instance, kde-base/kde?
20
21 --
22 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies